Suit against PC renter raises privacy questions

[Sherman A1]

By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press – Wed May 4, 6:31 am ET
PITTSBURGH – You didn't pay your bill. We need our computer back. And here's a picture of you typing away on it, the computer rental company told a client as it tried to repossess the machine.
Those allegations appear in a federal lawsuit alleging that the firm, Atlanta-based Aaron's Inc., loaded computers with spyware to track renters' keystrokes, make screenshots and even take webcam images of them using the devices at home. The suit filed by a Wyoming couple Tuesday raises anew questions of how invasive custodians of technology should be in protecting their equipment.
Computer privacy experts said Aaron's, a major furniture rental chain, has the right to equip its computers with software it can use to shut off the devices remotely if customers stop paying their bills, but they must be told if they're being monitored.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_rental_computer_spyware

Well, this should be interesting.....:popcorn:

[inademv]

1. If the property is owned by Aaron's then I don't see the complaint

Unless there is a specific clause in the rental agreement that there will be no software of that kind on the machine then the renter is definitely taking it upon themselves to take what security measures they feel are necessary.

[drm604]

3. You're defending this?

What possible reason is there for the rental store to monitor keystrokes and take pictures of the user?

[inademv]

6. Liability reasons

For example if the computer was used for illegal activities while it was being rented.

[drm604]

7. Can a landlord place cameras in your apartment and taps on your phone

to make sure that you're not using his property for illegal activities?

[inademv]

10. He can place cameras outside of it and watch who comes and goes.

[drm604]

12. That's not what I asked

and is not analogous to what this rental store did.

[inademv]

14. Yes it is analogous

For what Aaron's did to be the same as the hypothetical you proposed, they would have to collect all data on the hard-drive and monitor all websites visited, something that it is no apparent that they did.

[hobbit709]

15. Ir they took the pictures with the webcam, who knows what else they did.

Once you start down that slope it's almost impossible to stop. What do you think a keylogger does?

I refer you to last year's fuss in the Lower Merton School District.

[inademv]

17. Okay, since you aren't getting my point

Lets say that in the rental agreement there is a line that states "Aaron's reserves the right to utilize all proprietary software and hardware associated with the product in question to ensure against illegal use and/or loss of property".

What say you then.

[hobbit709]

18. You're the one not getting the point.

Nowhere did it say that in the article. The only thing it said was that Aarons could SHUT DOWN the computer remotely. That is a far cry from monitoring your activities.

For one claiming a strong libertarian viewpoint what makes it any more ethical for a company to do what the government is forbidden to do-i.e. invasion of privacy.

[inademv]

19. THIS IS MY POINT

the article doesn't give enough information to make a valid judgment on this specific situation. Further more, if the rental agreement states that Aaron's may change the agreement according to their own volition, then this is even more a moot point.

And no, where did I claim a strong libertarian viewpoint? Nowhere, that's where.

[hobbit709]

22. I refer you to post #8 in this thread.

And I was never much in favor of contracts that could be unilaterally changed by one party and not the other.

Of course I would never rent a computer or anything else from a place like that in the first place.

[inademv]

23. Poor reading comprehension on your part.

[Sherman A1]

30. Agreed

A right to protect their equipment and investment, certainly. A right to violate the privacy of their customer (or anyone)... not so much.

[octothorpe]

4. If you rent an apartment/house or lease a car

do you think it would be fair for the people renting it out to be able to put cameras in it, take pictures/videos and read your personal documents just because there wasn't a specific clause in the lease saying otherwise? Yeah sure, the users should have taken better security precautions, but that doesn't excuse Arron's. It's similar to how it's smart to lock our doors, but not locking our doors does not make it alright for people to break in and steal shit.

[inademv]

8. It goes into areas where I am libertarian in my opinions

The example of monitoring an apartment is a bit of an asinine one but I'll take it one anyways. There are privacy laws, which are extended to apartment/condo/house renters, which uphold the right to privacy within the household. To draw a parallel to the computer issue, it is like if the apartment owner put cameras on the outside of the house watching who comes and goes (which is legal btw), but as far as we know in this case, there was no capturing of the files the user/renter put on the computer or anything beyond keylogging and the comical camera hijacking.

To put it briefly, since you didn't fully comprehend the meaning of my previous post, there are no laws that I am aware of which prevent Aaron's from putting that kind of software on computers they are renting out. If the courts were to rule against it or there were laws passed to prevent it, then I would agree with them. But as it stands, with the information given in this situation, Aaron's did nothing wrong.

[Orrex]

11. Why is the camera hijacking "comical" in your view?

If you're willing to allow that privacy laws extend to an apartment, then why do you exclude automated cameras from those laws? More specifically, can you explain how a landlord sneaking a secret camera into an apartment is different from a rental company sneaking a secret camera into that same apartment? In your formulation of apartment vs. computer we aren't even particularly discussing Aaron's behavior in this case; you yourself extended the discussion to the larger question beyond the issue at hand.



Incidentally, the example of monitoring an apartment isn't "a bit asinine," though it reveals another way in which you lean libertarian: a libertarian's favorite tactic in argument is to attempt to ridicule the opponent's point rather than address it. Or, as in your case, to ridicule it and then address it while smarmily acting as though you're doing your opponent a favor.

[inademv]

16. The use of the camera may well have crossed the line (though I doubt it)

If we are going to discuss Aaron's behavior in this case then you are obliged to provide evidence that it is disallowed by their rental agreement.

The reason I called your hypothetical asinine, and believe me it is, is because the comparison of a rented piece of hardware and a dwelling is a comparison that is grasping at so many straws. There are a myriad of different laws which pertain exclusively to one or the other and to assert that the are the same opens you to even sillier comparisons.

Should the renter of an apartment not be allowed enter and evict the tenant of said apartment if the tenant is delinquent on their rent beyond whatever grace period the renter allows? Should the owner of a rented car be disallowed from repossessing said car and by consequence, for until it is claimed by the renter, the property inside?

No, a computer and an apartment are not the same and only by the loosest of comparisons are they even similar.

[Orrex]

24. Perhaps you've forgotten that you broadened the discussion into the hypothetical?

As such, I am not obliged to document anything at all about Aaron's behavior. Additionally, this is another famous libertarian tactic: demand irrelevant documentation from your opponent in an attempt to blur the discussion.

And we're not simply talking about a piece of rental hardware; we're talking about the propriety of a piece of rental hardware that takes covert photographs of a residence that you yourself have admitted is covered by privacy laws. That's the issue, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

Should the renter of an apartment not be allowed enter and evict the tenant of said apartment if the tenant is delinquent on their rent beyond whatever grace period the renter allows? Should the owner of a rented car be disallowed from repossessing said car and by consequence, for until it is claimed by the renter, the property inside?

Do you want to have that discussion instead? Or would you rather continue the discussion that we're having? The use of a secret camera in a rented computer is nothing at all like the eviction from an apartment for failure to pay the lease, not least because eviction is a process of litigation rather than the covert sneaking of a camera into a private residence.

No, a computer and an apartment are not the same and only by the loosest of comparisons are they even similar.

Fortunately, that's not the discussion we're having. No one is claiming that the apartment and the computer are the same thing; we're saying--correctly--that the secret installation of a camera in a computer intended for use in a private residence is the same as the secret installation of a camera in a private residence.

[inademv]

26. Fine, lets stay on track

If Aaron's rental agreement grants them permission to do what they did, then there is no argument. Divergent discussions are irrelevant and pointless as speculation.

Also the camera wasn't a "secret" camera, it was a webcam which was included with the computer when it was rented.

[Orrex]

27. If the rental agreement is clear and comprehensible, then I agree

If the language was written in a way that obfuscates the intent, then the renter has engaged in a deceptive practice and should be called on it.

Also, the camera can be considered "secret" if its purpose--to take covert pictures of the user, rather than on-demand pics by the user--then it's a secret camera.

[inademv]

28. The camera was part of the product

Its purpose is to take pictures, the software included by Aaron's to allow control of it is the only part you can reasonably have complaints on (provided it isn't allowed by the agreement, which is likely was).

[Orrex]

29. Perhaps you've forgotten that you broadened the discussion into the hypothetical?

The agreeement with Aaron's isn't relevant here; we're talking about the underlying issue of privacy vs. covert spying.

Beyond which, if a function of the camera (namely, a software package that works with the camera) is secret, then the camera itself can be said to be secret, insofar as this function is not transparent to the user.


And now you've invoked yet another pillar of libertarian "debate:" demand that your opponent rigidly and precisely define all terms of the discussion so that no advancement of the discussion is possible, and so that you can latter "call him" on some trivial divergence from that artificially precise definition.


How's the boot-strapping working out for you?

[inademv]

31. Fine, I don't care about your hypothetical

it is irrelevant to this thread and the direction of discussion it was aimed at.

[Orrex]

32. Irrelevant to you, perhaps. More's the pity.

It's actually the crux of the argument. You've decided to make yourself unable to see the more fundamental issue at work, and instead you've boiled it down to "the customer should've read the fine print." In the strictest sense you might be correct, but only if we isolate the discussion as a whole to a tiny matter of contract language, rather than recognizing it as a larger issue.

If it's more comfortable for you to maintain your tunnel vision, I'm not going to interfere.

[inademv]

33. Yes it is comfortatble to me

given that the customer was delinquent on their payment and was holding the computer within their home; at tactic far more preferable than a direct attempt to repossess the computer.

[Sherman A1]

5. Certainly the computer still belonged to Aaron's during the lease, however

I believe the article mentioned something along the line of a means of remotely shutting it down as opposed to a key logger or spycam. I for one would not appreciate them having the ability to take photos from the computer (just think of it being in a bedroom and all the pics that could come from there?), nor would I want them able to access my passwords, emails, postings to this site or anything else.

I believe that what they put on this machine was far beyond the scope necessary to protect their investment.

But, that's just my opinion and I am sure the court will come to a conclusion.

[inademv]

9. It may well have been befonre the necessicary scope of protection

but the point is that there wasn't enough information given in this story to ascertain whether or not Aaron's overstepped the terms explicitly established in their rental agreement.

[hobbit709]

13. Ah, yes. The old letter of the law.

I wonder how you would feel if it was you on the short end of that stick.

[inademv]

20. If I had failed to proper protect my own legal interest?

Then I would feel embarrassed for getting egg on my face.

[octothorpe]

2. Ugh.. Even if Arron's wins, I hope this serves as a major hit to them. This is screwed up.

[lpbk2713]

21. If they make disclosure in the rental agreement then it is legal.

It's not nice, but it's legal. The issue is cut and dried. The renter can
say no thanks and go somewhere else or they can take it on those terms.

[Sherman A1]

25. While I don't entirely disagree with you

I wonder if there exists on Aaron's servers, photos from people's bedrooms in various states of undress as computers sometimes are placed there? What if these computers were in a child's room and photos were taken through this system? I think there are some huge issues here and frankly Aaron's may have some real problems if there is even a hint of this.

They may not, but I believe that whomever set this system up or authorized it has some serious explaining to do, no matter what was in the rental agreement, no matter what was allegedly implied, inferred or disclosed in the 2 point type of the rental agreement. One photo with someone (particularly a child) in the background minus an article of clothing and..................